FUNDING GUILLOTINE Drops on Sanctuary Cities

Person holding a sign that reads 'FEDERAL FUNDS' in front of an American flag

The Trump Administration is doubling down on sanctuary city crackdowns with threats to cut federal funding and criminal penalties for local officials who refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement—directly contradicting any notion that federal agents need permission to enter these jurisdictions.

Story Snapshot

Trump announced plans to suspend federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions identified by the DOJ as obstructing immigration enforcement
Senator Lindsey Graham introduced legislation imposing criminal penalties on local officials who shield illegal immigrants or obstruct federal agents
The Administration rescinded Biden-era protections for churches, schools, and hospitals, allowing ICE enforcement in previously protected areas

Federal Crackdown Intensifies Against Sanctuary Jurisdictions

President Trump announced on January 13, 2026, plans to suspend federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions designated by the Department of Justice as impeding immigration enforcement. The DOJ published lists identifying twelve states and dozens of local jurisdictions with sanctuary policies that restrict cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These policies typically limit information sharing with ICE, decline to honor detainer requests without judicial warrants, and restrict ICE access to local detention facilities. This funding suspension creates immediate fiscal pressure on local governments already struggling with budget constraints.

Graham Legislation Targets Local Officials With Criminal Liability

Senator Lindsey Graham introduced legislation in January 2026 that would fundamentally alter the legal landscape for sanctuary city policies. The bill makes it illegal for state and local officials to obstruct federal immigration enforcement, shield illegal immigrants from apprehension, or withhold immigration records. Most significantly, the legislation imposes criminal penalties on officials who release illegal immigrants if the released person subsequently kills or seriously injures someone. Graham characterized sanctuary policies as the root cause of chaos surrounding ICE raids and plans to seek a vote when the Senate considers FY 2026 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.

Protected Areas Policy Eliminated for Schools and Churches

The Trump Administration rescinded Biden-era policies on January 20, 2025, that protected churches, schools, hospitals, and similar sensitive locations from immigration enforcement actions. The Administration replaced these protections with an unreleased directive giving ICE agents authority to take enforcement actions in these spaces using “common sense” judgment. Immigration advocacy groups warn this creates a chilling effect, deterring immigrant families from accessing medical care, education, childcare, and places of worship. The National Immigration Law Center characterized this as a fear tactic designed to make immigrant communities feel unsafe even in spaces fundamental to civil society.

Research Contradicts Administration Claims on Sanctuary City Crime

UC San Diego researcher Tom Wong analyzed FBI and census data comparing sanctuary and non-sanctuary jurisdictions, finding that sanctuary counties were actually safer and had less crime than comparable non-sanctuary counties. His 2024 survey identified community trust as the key mechanism: when people don’t fear immigration-related arrest during interactions with local law enforcement, they are more willing to report crimes and cooperate with police. This research directly contradicts the Trump Administration’s characterization of sanctuary cities as chaotic and dangerous. The findings suggest that federalizing immigration enforcement may undermine the community policing relationships that contribute to public safety.

Constitutional Tensions Over Federal Authority and Local Control

No federal law currently mandates what local governments must do regarding immigration enforcement, creating a constitutional gray area that the Trump Administration seeks to resolve through funding pressure and legislation. Some states have enacted laws requiring compliance with federal immigration enforcement, which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld as constitutional. However, some counties have faced lawsuits for honoring ICE detainers without judicial warrants due to Fourth Amendment concerns over unlawful detention. This legal landscape reveals the complexity of balancing federal immigration authority against local autonomy and individual constitutional protections. The Administration’s approach represents a significant assertion of federal power over state and local enforcement priorities.